Post on 11-Oct-2020
transcript
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
1
Memory Retrieval and the Functional Organiza tion of Frontal Cortex
Erika Nyhus, David Badre
Abstract
Controlling access to memory allows us to recover task-relevant information and
to relate it to our decisions, actions, and goals. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging
evidence suggests that memory control includes multiple component processes that
depend on different regions of prefrontal cortex (PFC). Here, we highlight the distinction
between PFC networks involved in controlling retrieval versus post-retrieval control
operations. Whereas a ventral retrieval pathway that includes the anterior ventrolateral
prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) can elaborate and structure inputs to influence memory
retrieval, a more dorsal network that includes mid-VLPFC and dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex (DLPFC) acts post-retrieval to select appropriate representations, set decision
criteria, and monitor the outcome of retrieval. PFC interacts with a broad network of
brain regions through neural oscillations to coordinate memory retrieval.
Keywords: Memory retreival; Cognitive control; Controlled retrieval; Post-retrieval
selection; Post-retrieval monitoring; Prefrontal cortex; Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
2
Introduction
To be adaptive, the long-term memory system must support retrieval of
previously stored knowledge that has high utility given our current task and goals. In this
framing, the problem of memory retrieval concerns balancing the recovery of useful
information on the one hand against the inherent costs associated with retrieval itself
(Anderson and Milson 1989). Central to striking this balance is cognitive control function
(sometimes called executive function), or the ability to leverage abstract goals and
contextual representations in order to adaptively influence retrieval and memory-based
performance.
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is necessary for cognitive control function, including
during the cognitive control of memory. Whereas damage to medial temporal lobe (MTL)
structures produces amnesia that catastrophically impairs the encoding of new
information and retrieval of recently encoded information (Scoville and Milner 1957),
damage to the PFC results in more subtle memory deficits (Moscovitch 1992, Stuss and
Alexander 2005). For example, PFC patients are impaired in contexts that require
retrieval of specific information (i.e. source memory tasks; Janowsky et al. 1989, Swick,
Senkfor, and Van Petten 2006), reliance on retrieval strategies (Moscovitch and Melo
1997), overcoming interference (Moscovitch 1982, Squire 1982, Winocur, Kinsbourne,
and Moscovitch 1981), ordering information at retrieval (Shimamura, Janowsky, and
Squire 1990), or retrieval with limited cue support (e.g. free recall; Janowsky,
Shimamura, and Squire 1989, Jetter et al. 1986, Stuss et al. 1994). Neuroimaging studies
have similarly implicated PFC in relation to specific manipulations of cognitive control at
retrieval (Fletcher and Henson 2001, Rugg and Wilding 2000, Badre and Wagner 2007).
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
3
Thus, PFC is a crucial component of the system that supports cognitive control of
memory.
In general, the mechanism of cognitive control can be described in terms of a
process of guided activation (Miller and Cohen 2001), wherein contextual or goal
information is maintained in working memory and thereby has the opportunity to provide
a top-down influence on processing elsewhere. Nevertheless, a central debate in the study
of cognitive control concerns whether cognitive control is a unitary process or involves a
diverse set of functionally distinguishable control processes (e.g. Cooper 2010).
Mirroring the debate about the componentiality of cognitive control, the PFC is
likely not a functionally homogenous structure supporting a unitary executive, but may
contain distinct subsystems that support different forms of cognitive control.
Neuroimaging studies have provided the primary evidence in favor of functional
dissociations in PFC (Spaniol et al. 2009, Simons and Spiers 2003, Badre and Wagner
2007). Though debate still exists as to whether there are undifferentiated “multiple-
demand zones” within PFC - such as within the mid-dorsolateral PFC (Duncan 2010) - it
seems now widely accepted that functional distinctions likely exist, such as between
ventral and dorsal lateral PFC (Petrides 2002, Simons and Spiers 2003), rostral versus
caudal PFC (Buckner 2003, Race, Shanker, and Wagner 2008), left versus right lateral
PFC (Tulving et al. 1994, Nolde, Johnson, and Raye 1998), and lateral PFC versus
medial and subcortical systems (Kuhl et al. 2008, Scimeca and Badre 2012). Though,
considerable controversy remains regarding the validity of these distinctions and how to
map them onto both individual experimental tasks and real world behavior.
The cognitive control of memory is also likely componential, emerging from a set
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
4
of interacting component processes. For example, cognitive control has the opportunity to
influence retrieval performance in several ways, ranging from processes that structure
inputs to the memory system (e.g., cue elaboration) to output control that monitors the
outcome of retrieval and selects which representations are permitted to influence decision
and action (Benjamin 2007). These and other distinct memory control processes could
likewise be supported by different brain systems. Though research has only begun to
refine understanding of these mechanisms and their support by the brain, several
distinctions have been proposed regarding differential control processing in the PFC (e.g.
Nyberg, Cabeza, and Tulving 1996, Tulving et al. 1994, Simons and Spiers 2003, Spaniol
et al. 2009, Badre and Wagner 2007).
Here we will focus on an example of functional specification within PFC related
to cognitive control of memory retrieval. We will discuss the hypothetical specialization
within ventrolateral PFC (VLPFC) between controlled retrieval and post-retrieval
selection/monitoring operations. We will conclude by broadening the discussion of this
distinction to consider the participation of these PFC subregions within distinct larger-
scale functional networks.
VLPFC and the two-process model
The left VLPFC refers to the broad region of lateral frontal cortex that is ventral
to the inferior frontal sulcus and rostral to premotor cortex. Investigation of the function
of this region has long provided the strongest evidence in favor of functional
specialization within PFC, starting with the classic studies of language impairment by
Paul Broca (e.g., Broca 1861) to early functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
5
studies that distinguished subregions within left VLPFC related to the domain of verbal
processing (e.g., the semantic vs. phonological distinction; Poldrack et al. 1999). More
recent work has focused on functional distinctions within this region as they relate to the
cognitive control of memory. Specifically, recent work in our lab and in others has
focused on a distinction between controlled retrieval, supported by anterior VLPFC, and
post-retrieval selection, supported by mid-VLPFC (Badre and Wagner 2007). Here, we
will consider the evidence for and against this potential distinction within left VLPFC.
To illustrate the distinction at the process level between controlled retrieval and
selection, it is helpful to consider the analogy of searching for specific information on the
Internet. For example, consider that you wish to find information about our lab. First, you
need to “hit” our link from the broad, latent associative structure of the web. To do this,
you devise a particular keyword to put in your web browser. Of course, some keywords
will be more effective than others. For example, searching for “Badre Lab” is likely to
produce our lab website as the top link. However, a less effective search, like “science
lab”, would make it unlikely that you would find the link to our lab without a prohibitive
cost in browsing time. Similar to this example, controlled retrieval refers to strategically
guiding the activation of task-relevant information from its latent state. In human
memory, controlled retrieval can progress by focusing on or elaborating effective cues
and thereby increasing the likelihood that task-relevant information is activated from
memory. From this perspective, one means of manipulating controlled retrieval
experimentally is to reduce the strength of association between salient cues and target
knowledge that would support automatic, cue-driven retrieval. In these cases, a top-down
influence can aid in activating relevant knowledge from memory.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
6
Importantly, however, it is very difficult to devise even a pair of keywords in a
search engine that produce only a single web link. (In fact, it is rare enough that there is a
hobby called “Googlewhacking”, whereby people try to achieve fame by finding pairs of
keywords that produce only one hit through GoogleTM.) Thus, once we retrieve
information into our browser, we “browse” or further select the links we want from this
limited retrieved set. Though human memory is different in important ways from the
Internet, it is a similarly vast, associative structure that uses a form of priority, such as
previous co-occurrence, to rank the likelihood that a given representation will be
retrieved given a particular cue (Anderson and Milson 1989, Griffiths, Steyvers, and Firl
2007). But, like the Internet, this associative structure ensures that multiple
representations will be retrieved given any cue, and that the highest ranked representation
may not be the one needed given current goals and decision criteria. Thus, it is adaptive if
a controlled retrieval system is complemented by an output control system that maintains
current decision criteria and selects relevant items from among competitors in working
memory. The process of selecting from among retrieved information is termed post-
retrieval selection. From this perspective, manipulations of response or decision criteria
or varying the degree of competition among retrieved representations should affect post-
retrieval selection.
Multiple lines of evidence support the involvement of left VLPFC in the cognitive
control of memory. Functional neuroimaging studies, including using fMRI and positron
emission tomography (PET), have repeatedly demonstrated greater activation in VLPFC
under conditions of effortful or goal directed retrieval, such as controlling phonological
and semantic representations (e.g. Gold et al. 2005), retrieving items with weak versus
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
7
strong cue support (e.g. Badre et al. 2005), overcoming proactive interference (e.g.
Öztekin and Badre 2011), and active inhibition of memories (e.g. Anderson et al. 2004).
Moreover, disruption of VLPFC due to neurological damage or disease decreased
patient’s ability to select among competing information (Metzler 2001, Thompson-Schill
et al. 1998) and intraoperative stimulation (Klein et al. 1997) or application of
transcranial magnetic stimulation (Devlin, Matthews, and Rushworth 2003, Gough,
Nobre, and Devlin 2005) disrupts performance when participants are required to retrieve
semantic information. Thus, in broad terms, VLPFC makes a necessary contribution to
cognitive control of memory retrieval. However, an ongoing debate concerns the precise
nature of VLPFC contributions to memory retrieval, and its functional organization in
support of cognitive control.
Drawing on a wide range of declarative memory paradigms, including tests of
both semantic and episodic memory, as well as retrieval during action selection, such as
task switching, Badre and Wagner (2007) proposed that distinct subdivisions of the
rostral left VLPFC support distinct controlled retrieval and post-retrieval selection
processes, associated with the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) pars orbitalis (~Brodmann area
[BA] 47) and pars triangularis (~BA 45), respectively. These subregions were termed
anterior VLPFC and mid-VLPFC respectively (see Figure 1). We now briefly summarize
the evidence that supports this distinction.
==============================
Insert Figure 1 about here
==============================
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
8
The two-process model proposes that anterior VLPFC is activated when memory
must be searched in a goal-directed manner (i.e., controlled retrieval). Accordingly, when
bottom-up cues are insufficient to elicit activation of target knowledge (i.e., automatic
retrieval), demands on controlled retrieval increase. Control can aid retrieval in these
contexts by elaborating cues or generating retrieval plans that structure the input to the
retrieval system and so make it more likely that relevant information will be retrieved.
Consistent with this hypothesis, anterior VLPFC is consistently activated during semantic
retrieval tasks in which the association between available cues and target knowledge is
weak. For example, deciding that “candle” is semantically related to “flame” is easier and
requires less controlled retrieval than deciding that “candle” is related to “halo” because
the association between candle and halo is weak relative to the association between
candle and flame. Thus, experiments that manipulate associative strength, based either on
pre-experimental norms (Badre et al. 2005, Wagner et al. 2001) or based on associations
learned during the experimental session (Danker, Gunn, and Anderson 2008),
consistently show greater activation in anterior VLPFC under weak relative to strong
associative strength conditions (see Figure 2). In a way similar to high cue-target
association strength, anterior VLPFC shows repetition suppression effects accompanying
the increased semantic fluency that follows repetition of an item during a semantic
memory task, even when the decision/response level effects are not repeated (Race,
Shanker, and Wagner 2008).
According to the two-process model, mid-VLPFC is activated under conditions in
which multiple items are retrieved from memory, but only a subset must be selected for
further processing (i.e., post-retrieval selection; Badre and Wagner 2007). As described
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
9
above, automatic and controlled retrieval processes can result in the recovery of multiple
representations. Thus, post-retrieval selection is needed to resolve competition among the
multiple retrieved representations and to permit selected representations to guide decision
and action.
Support for mid-VLPFC and post-retrieval selection comes from several sources.
First, mid-VLPFC shows greater activation when participants are asked to decide if two
items (e.g., “apple” and “blood”) are similar along a particular dimension, like color,
relative to deciding whether they are generally semantically related to one another
regardless of dimension (feature specificity effect) (Badre et al. 2005, Thompson-Schill
et al. 1997) (see Figure 2). This difference is thought to arise because making the
decision along a particular task-relevant dimension requires focusing attention only on
the retrieved details relevant to the decision and ignoring any other properties. Notably,
anterior VLPFC does not show a difference between specific and general decision
conditions (Badre et al. 2005).
Proactive interference (PI) occurs when a prior learned association automatically
elicits retrieval of information that competes with a current retrieval task (Anderson and
Neely 1996, Postman and Underwood 1973). PI during short-term item recognition has
consistently been associated with increased activation in mid-VLPFC (Postle and Brush
2004, Postle, Brush, and Nick 2004, Badre and Wagner 2005). PI during short-term item
recognition does not consistently produce activation increases in anterior VLPFC.
However, as discussed below, other manipulations of PI have been associated with
anterior VLPFC activation (Öztekin and Badre 2011).
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
10
During lexical decision, an unexpected target produces an interference effect
above a neutral baseline. This interference effect is thought to be due to competition
between information retrieved during preparation for the target and the information that
must be retrieved upon encountering the unexpected target. Competition of this type
during lexical decision is associated with increased activation in mid-VLPFC. By contrast
anterior VLPFC shows priming effects consistent with the reduced retrieval demands
(Gold et al. 2006). Thus, across these examples, it appears that mid-VLPFC is critical
under conditions of competition, presumably when there is a demand to select relevant
information for further processing. By contrast, anterior VLPFC is not consistently
activated under these circumstances.
Importantly, attempts to directly dissociate anterior and mid-VLPFC are
complicated by the fact that, akin to our web search analogy, any process of retrieval, be
it controlled or automatic, holds the potential for competition. Thus, similar to anterior
VLPFC, mid-VLPFC often shows increased activation under conditions requiring
controlled retrieval (Badre et al. 2005, Wagner et al. 2001). And so, though single
dissociations are sometimes observed (e.g., Danker, Gunn, and Anderson 2008), double
dissociations are less common. However, if one pits competition against associative
strength, it is possible to dissociate these regions. For example, when the number of
retrieval cues is small (low overall retrieval) but associative strength is weak, this will put
more demands on controlled retrieval than selection. By contrast, when the number of
retrieval cues is large (high overall retrieval) but associative strength is high, this puts
greater demands on selection than controlled retrieval. Consistent with this prediction,
Badre et al. (2005) directly pitted number of available retrieval cues against associative
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
11
strength and produced activation in anterior VLPFC but not mid-VLPFC. Thus, crossing
the number of retrieval cues (i.e., increasing retrieval demands) with associative strength
dissociates anterior from mid-VLPFC; and when this is taken together with the feature
specificity effect described above, this produces a region by effect interaction,
dissociating anterior and mid-VLPFC (Badre and Wagner 2007).
==============================
Insert Figure 2 about here
==============================
In summary, then, there is evidence both across and within studies for dissociable
functions between aVLPFC and mid-VLPFC during cognitive control of memory, and
these functions can be characterized as controlled retrieval and post-retrieval selection
respectively. Nevertheless, there have been challenges to the two-process model in recent
years. These have included formal theoretical arguments about whether two processes are
required to achieve controlled retrieval and selection functions, as opposed to a single
process model that can support both functions (Danker, Gunn, and Anderson 2008,
Thompson-Schill and Botvinick 2006). These models make clear that a single process
could achieve these two functions. However, it would seem difficult for a single process
model to account for the empirical dissociation between these processes. There has also
been some debate about the nature of the relationship between anterior VLPFC and
controlled retrieval and whether the manipulation of associative strength actually reflects
the domain of information being retrieved, such as retrieval of abstract semantics
(Goldberg et al. 2007). Though again, a strictly domain-based account appears to difficult
to reconcile with the broader data supporting the controlled retrieval hypothesis, such as
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
12
the observation of activation in anterior VLPFC when retrieving weak, arbitrary paired
associations (Danker, Gunn, and Anderson 2008).
However, recent years have produced a potentially important challenge to the
characterization of post-retrieval selection and its hypothesized relationship with
competition. First, Öztekin and Badre (2011) manipulated competition using a release-
from-PI paradigm in which competition was quantified for each trial using multi-voxel
pattern analysis (MVPA). This procedure estimated the degree to which competing
information was active during each memory decision, as reflected in the distributed fMRI
activation in lateral temporal cortex. Importantly, these MVPA indices correlated with
behavioral PI effects and forgetting in memory. However, activation in anterior VLPFC,
rather than mid-VLPFC, varied with PI conditions. Moreover, a mediation analysis
showed that activation in anterior VLPFC mediated the relationship between the MVPA
indices and behavioral PI. In other words, anterior VLPFC was associated with
competition resolution in this task.
Second, Snyder, Banich, & Munakata (2011) used a latent semantic analysis
procedure to independently characterize the cue-target association strength and
competition of target words during a verb generation task. LSA analyzes large bodies of
texts to build a multidimensional semantic space in which every word can be plotted in
terms of its meaning and its similarity to other words’ meanings. Any word can be coded
both in terms of its distance from another word in the space (i.e., association strength)
and its neighborhood density or how many words cluster closely around that word in the
space (i.e., competition). Behaviorally, these two demands are separable, consistent with
the concept of distinct controlled retrieval and selection processes (Snyder et al. 2010).
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
13
However, regions of interest (ROIs) in both anterior and mid-VLPFC showed additive
activation changes to both manipulations. Thus, again, a more formal definition of
competition in memory found sensitivity to this manipulation within aVLPFC, suggesting
that this factor alone cannot account for the previously observed dissociation.
The Öztekin and Badre (2011) and Snyder et al., (2011) results call into question
the concept of competition during memory retrieval as being a clear distinguishing factor
between anterior VLPFC and mid-VLPFC. Reconciling these findings with the empirical
dissociations observed elsewhere will be important for understanding both the function of
VLPFC and the factors that affect cognitive control of memory. For example, in Snyder,
Banich, & Munakata (2011), competition arose from within the distributed, semantic
structure of long-term memory itself. By contrast, prior studies of post-retrieval selection
that show selective mid-VLPFC activation have directly or indirectly manipulated control
over the decision criteria required to make a response based on retrieved information.
Indeed, repeating a concept produces repetition suppression in anterior VLPFC, even
when the decision that is made about that concept changes (e.g., categorization based on
size versus material type; Race, Shanker, and Wagner 2008). By contrast, repetition
suppression in mid-VLPFC requires both repetition of the concept and the decision
(Race, Shanker, and Wagner 2008). Consistent with peri- and post-retrieval processing,
these distinct repetition effects are separable in time, as assessed with EEG (Race, Badre,
and Wagner 2010). Hence, as opposed to the presence or absence of competition, the
critical factor governing the involvement of aVLPFC versus mid-VLPFC may be the
locus of competition, either in working memory or in long-term memory, and the
mechanisms that are deployed to resolve that competition. Future studies will be required
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
14
to separate competition from decision manipulations in order to further understand the
distinctions between anterior and mid-VLPFC during control of memory.
Separable Functional Frontal Networks
Importantly, subregions of the PFC do not function in isolation. Rather they are
participants in larger association networks that dynamically produce controlled behavior.
In recent years, functional connectivity analysis of fMRI data (fcMRI) has begun to
characterize the networks of regions that may functionally affiliate during particular
cognitive or motor tasks or as a consequence of spontaneous activity during rest (Fox and
Raichle 2007). During rest, fcMRI has taken advantage of large samples and data sets in
order to parcellate the cortex into different regional groupings that correlate in the low
frequency components of their signal (Buckner 2010). Among other factors, these low
frequency correlations may reflect the presence of polysynaptic pathways connecting
brain regions. Therefore, fcMRI, even at rest, can provide evidence for the presence of
functional brain networks. However, given that other factors beyond fixed anatomy likely
contribute to these correlations, one should be cautious in assuming that the precise
boundaries found at rest will remain fixed across task manipulations. Nevertheless, these
networks can provide a helpful guide for generating hypotheses to be tested in task data.
Nevertheless, it may be informative to consider the degree to which the regional
distinctions drawn in PFC during control of memory – such as between controlled
retrieval and post-retrieval selection – might reflect differences across these broader
functional networks.
Of particular relevance to the present discussion, fcMRI across different analysis
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
15
methods has consistently suggested that roughly ventral versus dorsal frontal regions
participate in separable functional networks (Yeo et al. 2011, Vincent et al. 2008,
Dosenbach et al. 2007; Fig 3A). First, a dorsal frontoparietal network has been repeatedly
observed and includes regions of DLPFC and posterior parietal cortex, along the
intraparietal sulcus. Second, ventrolateral and orbital frontal cortex consistently correlate
with a network that includes medial and lateral temporal regions, including hippocampus.
This latter network includes many of the regions observed previously in the “default-
mode” network (Raichle et al. 2001). However, the division between these two networks
is not clearly between the inferior and middle frontal gyrus, which are often labeled
VLPFC and DLPFC respectively. Rather, the caudal and dorsal portions of the inferior
frontal gyrus clustered with the dorsal frontoparietal control network, whereas the rostral
and ventral portions of inferior frontal gyrus were clustered separately. And, as can be
observed in Figure 3A, prior definitions of anterior and mid-VLPFC differentially fall on
these separate networks, in that anterior VLPFC consistently falls in the ventral network,
whereas mid-VLPFC falls on both or strictly on the dorsal network. This raises the
prospect that the observed difference between anterior VLPFC and mid-VLPFC may be
reflective of a broader distinction among functional networks (see Figure 3B).
==============================
Insert Figure 3 about here
==============================
Our lab recently tested this hypothesis by analyzing functional connectivity
during an episodic memory retrieval task (Barredo, Oztekin, and Badre in revision).
Participants performed a single-agenda source monitoring or exclusion task (Jacoby
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
16
1991). Specifically, at encoding participants performed one of two semantic decisions
with words (size or organic). Then, at test, they verified whether they had performed a
target source task with each word, indicating yes or no. Importantly, we assume that any
evidence of an item being old drives a tendency to endorse the item. Thus, these
“incongruent” items produce decision or response-level conflict in order to either reject
the evidence of oldness as not diagnostic for the source decision and/or to override the
positive response. This conflict is evident in increased RT and errors for these
incongruent items relative to congruent items (which were seen with the target source
task and entail a “yes” response). Beyond congruency, we also manipulated the
association strength between item cues and target source information by varying
repetition during encoding. A single encounter with an item at encoding should produce a
weaker memory trace associating that item with its source task compared to multiple
repetitions. So, greater controlled retrieval should be required on weak associative
strength trials.
Importantly, controlled retrieval is only affected by associative strength, and is
insensitive to congruency. This is because congruency does not affect the likelihood of
retrieval, but concerns how remembered information is related to the current response
criteria. By contrast, post-retrieval decision processes will show an interaction between
strength and congruency, wherein strong items are easier to endorse than weak items for
congruent trials, but strong items are harder to reject than weak items for incongruent
trials. In summary, then, regions showing a main effect of associative strength without an
interaction with congruency may be sensitive to retrieval, whereas regions showing a
strength by congruency interaction are sensitive to post-retrieval factors.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
17
Using this logic, we observed evidence that aVLPFC is a member of a ventral
retrieval pathway whereas mid-VLPFC affiliates with the dorsal frontoparietal control
system (see Figure 3B). Specifically, we observed that aVLPFC along with other regions
along the ventral pathway, such as anterior temporal cortex, anterior parahippocampal
gyrus, and hippocampus, showed effects of controlled retrieval that did not interact with
congruency. Functional connectivity analysis of these functionally defined seeds
confirmed that they were members of a common correlated network, specifically
correlating more with one another than regions outside of the network. By contrast, mid-
VLPFC showed an interaction between strength and congruency in its univariate analysis
and was functionally connected to DLPFC and inferior parietal regions that are members
of the fronto-parietal post-retrieval control network (Dosenbach et al. 2007, Vincent et al.
2008, Yeo et al. 2011). Mid-VLPFC did not correlate with the ventral retrieval network.
Notably, in addition to coupling with the ventral retrieval pathway, aVLPFC also
correlated with mid-VLPFC and the dorsal fronto-parietal post-retrieval control network.
This potentially suggests that aVLPFC acts as a hub, coordinating processing between the
ventral retrieval system and the dorsal post-retrieval control system. But, the precise
functional significance of this observation is an important question for future work (see
Figure 4).
==============================
Insert Figure 4 about here
==============================
These results provide a broader context for the previous distinctions between
aVLPFC and mid-VLPFC. Specifically, prior work has defined VLPFC synonymously
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
18
with the inferior frontal gyrus and has drawn distinctions – such as between aVLPFC and
mid-VLPFC – within this anatomically defined region. However, as noted above, the
functional boundary between these networks may not be at the inferior frontal sulcus.
Rather the dorsal fronto-parietal post-retrieval control system includes the middle frontal
gyrus and the caudal and dorsal portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Thus, purely as a
matter of location within the inferior frontal gyrus, prior definitions of aVLPFC are more
likely to fall on the ventral retrieval network and definitions of mid-VLPFC are more
likely to fall on the fronto-parietal post-retrieval control network or to be on the border of
both retrieval and post-retrieval control networks.
In this regard, it is notable that tasks previously observed to activate DLPFC are
those that manipulate post-retrieval monitoring (Rugg, Otten, and Henson 2002, Rugg
and Wilding 2000), active inhibition of memories (Anderson et al. 2004, Butler and
James 2010, Depue, Curran, and Banich 2007, Kuhl et al. 2008), and relational
operations within working memory (Blumenfeld and Ranganath 2007, Fletcher et al.
1998). Based on the operational definitions of these functions used in the literature, it is
difficult to draw a clear process distinction between these post-retrieval/decision-level
functions and the concept of post-retrieval selection outlined above. It is possible that
such distinctions exist and there is further functional specialization between mid-VLPFC
and DLPFC. However, another possibility raised by the connectivity analysis is that this
process similarity reflects the fact that mid-VLPFC should be functionally grouped with
this broader dorsal network. Hence, at least one key functional neuroanatomic distinction
in control of memory is between (1) processes affecting retrieval directly (controlled
retrieval) that are supported by a ventral retrieval network and (2) processes that operate
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
19
post-retrieval to align remembered information with current task goals and decision
criteria and are supported by a more dorsal frontal-parietal network.
Transient Dynamics Within Frontal Networks
In the previous sections, we have described a distinction between control
operations that operate to influence retrieval itself versus those that operate post-retrieval
to align retrieval with task goals and decision criteria. Evidence from fMRI has suggested
that this distinction is supported by distinct neuroanatomical subsystems. The temporal
resolution afforded by electroencephalography (EEG) has provided complementary
evidence for this distinction. First, these peri- and post-retrieval processes should be
distinguishable temporally. Event related potential (ERP) studies have shown early
posterior (~400 ms post-stimulus onset) and late right frontal (~1000 ms post-stimulus
onset) differences between correctly recognized old and new items ("old/new effects")
during source retrieval (Allan, Wilding, and Rugg 1998, Wilding and Rugg 1996),
supporting the presence of multiple temporal components during retrieval. Race et al.
(2010) more directly related early and late ERP components to retrieval and post-retrieval
decision and response processes. Participants were asked to make semantic decisions
about presented items. Items were repeated during the experiment sometimes with the
same decision and sometimes with a difference decision, allowing item-semantic priming
to be separated from decision-related priming effects. In ERP, the item priming occurred
at an earlier stage than the decision priming, consistent with modulation of early retrieval
processes versus late decision processes. Thus, the ERP data are largely consistent with
two temporally distinguishable components related to retrieval versus post-retrieval
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
20
decision or monitoring demands. However, given recent insights regarding the
importance of at least two broad functional networks to controlled retrieval and selection,
data from EEG can also address the nature of neural dynamics within the networks
described above.
Although functional connectivity indicates anatomical connectivity between
frontal and posterior brain regions, the mechanism by which these brain regions
dynamically interact during declarative memory retrieval has not been specified. It has
been proposed that neural oscillations provide the means by which brain areas interact to
perform cognitive tasks (Başar and Schürmann 2001, Miller and Wilson 2008, Varela et
al. 2001). Fluctuations in postsynaptic potentials produce local oscillations. In addition,
oscillators in one brain region can phase synchronize with oscillators in another region
through long-range connections. A mechanism for interaction for both local populations
of neurons and large neural assemblies is through phase synchronization of oscillations
(Miller and Wilson 2008, Varela et al. 2001). As neurons oscillate, they effectively open
and close their window to both send and receive information (Buzsáki and Draguhn 2004,
Womelsdorf et al. 2007). For information to be transferred from one neuronal group to
another, the sending neuron must be excitable at the same time that the receiving group is
excitable. This requires the coupling of oscillations between sending and receiving
neurons through phase synchronization (Fries 2005). This pattern of neural interaction
allows for efficient neural communication through the transient coupling of neurons
firing synchronously forming functional neural networks.
There is convincing evidence that neural rhythms contribute to memory retrieval.
During episodic retrieval, a number of EEG studies have found greater theta power for
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
21
hits than correct rejections. Moreover, differences in theta power distinguish individual
differences in episodic memory retrieval performance (reviewed in Nyhus and Curran
2010a). We recently proposed that theta oscillations represent interactions between brain
systems for the control of episodic retrieval (Nyhus and Curran 2010a). This hypothesis
was initially motivated by studies attempting to localize the sources of theta oscillations
during episodic retrieval. In general, theta power increases are frequently observed in
frontal scalp locations during successful episodic retrieval and frontal and posterior scalp
locations for retrieval of specific details of the study episode.
To test whether theta oscillations are related to the control of memory retrieval,
we conducted three EEG experiments during which subjects performed a source retrieval
task (Nyhus and Curran 2010b). Results showed right frontal theta power that was greater
for old than new words. In addition, theta coherence between right frontal and left
parietal channels was greater for old than new words, incorrect than correct memory
judgments as well as for low confidence than high confidence response (see Figure 5).
Post-retrieval monitoring demands should be greater when decisions are uncertain, which
is more likely for incorrect than correct memory judgments and low than high confidence
resposnses. Therefore, these results suggest that transient theta interactions in a fronto-
parietal network are involved in the monitoring of episodic memory.
==============================
Insert Figure 5 about here
==============================
Although these results suggest that theta oscillations are important for
communication among brain regions in a post-retrieval control network, future research
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
22
remains to be done to localize the source of these effects, and determine the frequency of
communication among the controlled retrieval and post-retrieval control networks. For
example, though there are no data on the oscillatory correlates of controlled retrieval as
distinct from selection, it is notable that semantic retrieval, which is particularly
dependent on aVLPFC, has been associated with alpha rather than theta band oscillations.
Due to their spatial and temporal limitations, EEG and fMRI methods alone are not
sufficient to identify the relationship between oscillations and specific functional
networks involved in memory retrieval. Future research simultaneously recording EEG
and fMRI is necessary to examine the relationship between oscillatory effect and the
functional networks identified with fMRI in declarative memory retrieval.
Conclusion
In order to deal effectively with our environment, declarative memory systems
have developed to adaptively retrieve information that is relevant while outweighing the
costs of retrieval. Although information can be automatically retrieved, cognitive control
of declarative memory retrieval is important for adaptive retrieval. Here, we have
highlighted one functional distinction in the cognitive control of memory that appears to
receive support from multiple methods: controlled retrieval versus post-retrieval control.
As described above, evidence suggests that a ventral retrieval pathway that
includes the anterior VLPFC biases memory retrieval when memories are not readily
retrieved. A more dorsal network that includes mid-VLPFC and potentially DLPFC
aligns what has been retrieved with task goals by selecting appropriate representations,
setting decision criteria, and monitoring the outcome of retrieval. These associated
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
23
networks likely coordinate their activity via oscillations, such as in the theta band for
post-retrieval control, the dynamics of which are largely unknown.
Though progress has been made in understanding how the brain controls memory
retrieval, a number of fundamental questions remain to be addressed. For example, how
are memory control strategies learned, evaluated, and adjusted? What are the neural
mechanisms by which PFC can increase the likelihood of retrieval or select relevant
items from working memory? How does aVLPFC “know” that memory strength is weak
and so it is necessary to guide retrieval? Of course, satisfying answers to these questions
must be provided without recourse to a “homunculus” or little man in the head who just
performs these functions. Rather, formal theoretical and computational models that can
incorporate findings from neuroscience data are required. Thus, in our view, considerable
progress on these questions will be made by extending existing models of cognitive
control to the domain of memory.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
24
References
Allan, K., E. L. Wilding, and M. D. Rugg. 1998. "Electrophysiological Evidence for
Dissociable Processes Contributing to Recollection." Acta Psychologica no. 98
(2-3):231-52. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00044-9.
Anderson, J. R., and R. Milson. 1989. "Human Memory: An Adaptive Perspective."
Psychological Review no. 96 (4):703-719. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.703.
Anderson, M. C., and J. H. Neely. 1996. "Interference and Inhibition in Memory
Retrieval." In Memory. Handbook of Perception and Cognition, edited by E. L.
Bjork and R. A. Bjork, 237-313. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Anderson, M. C., K. N. Ochsner, B. Kuhl, J. Cooper, E. Robertson, S. W. Gabrieli, G. H.
Glover, and J. D. Gabrieli. 2004. "Neural Systems Underlying the Suppression of
Unwanted Memories." Science no. 303 (5655):232-5. doi:
10.1126/science.1089504.
Badre, D., R. A. Poldrack, E. J. Pare-Blagoev, R. Z. Insler, and A. D. Wagner. 2005.
"Dissociable Controlled Retrieval and Generalized Selection Mechanisms in
Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex." Neuron no. 47 (6):907-18. doi:
10.1016/j.neuron.2005.07.023.
Badre, D., and A. D. Wagner. 2005. "Frontal Lobe Mechanisms That Resolve Proactive
Interference." Cereb Cortex no. 15 (12):2003-12. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhi075.
Badre, D., and A. D. Wagner. 2007. "Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex and the
Cognitive Control of Memory." Neuropsychologia no. 45 (13):2883-901. doi:
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.015.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
25
Barredo, J., I. Oztekin, and D. Badre. in revision. "Ventral Fronto-Temporal Pathway
Supporting Cognitive Control of Episodic Memory Retrieval."
Başar, E., and M. Schürmann. 2001. "Toward New Theories of Brain Function and Brain
Dynamics." International Journal of Psychophysiology no. 39 (2-3):87-9.
Benjamin, A.S. 2007. "Memory Is More Than Just Remembering: Strategic Control of
Encoding, Accessing Memory, and Making Decisions." In The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, Volume 48: Skill and Strategy in Memory Use, edited
by A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross, 175-223. New York: Elsevier.
Blumenfeld, R. S., and C. Ranganath. 2007. "Prefrontal Cortex and Long-Term Memory
Encoding: An Integrative Review of Findings from Neuropsychology and
Neuroimaging." The Neuroscientist no. 13 (3):280-91. doi:
10.1177/1073858407299290.
Broca, P. 1861. "Remarques Sur La Si´Ege De La Facult´E Du Langage Aticul´E, Suivi
D’une Observation D’ap ´Emie." Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Anatomique de Paris no.
2:300-357.
Buckner, R. L. 2003. "Functional-Anatomic Correlates of Control Processes in Memory."
Journal of Neuroscience no. 23 (10):3999-4004. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2625-
04.2004.
Buckner, R. L. 2010. "Human Functional Connectivity: New Tools, Unresolved
Questions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America no. 107 (24):10769-70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005987107.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
26
Butler, A. J., and K. H. James. 2010. "The Neural Correlates of Attempting to Suppress
Negative Versus Neutral Memories." Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience no. 10 (2):182-94. doi: 10.3758/CABN.10.2.182.
Buzsáki, G., and A. Draguhn. 2004. "Neuronal Oscillations in Cortical Networks."
Science no. 304 (5679):1926-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1099745.
Cooper, R.P. 2010. "Cognitive Control: Componential or Emergent?" Topics in Cognitive
Science no. 2:598-613. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01110.x.
Danker, J. F., P. Gunn, and J. R. Anderson. 2008. "A Rational Account of Memory
Predicts Left Prefrontal Activation During Controlled Retrieval." Cerebral Cortex
no. 18 (11):2674-85. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn027.
Depue, B. E., T. Curran, and M. T. Banich. 2007. "Prefrontal Regions Orchestrate
Suppression of Emotional Memories Via a Two-Phase Process." Science no. 317
(5835):215-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1139560.
Devlin, J. T., P. M. Matthews, and M. F. Rushworth. 2003. "Semantic Processing in the
Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: A Combined Functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study." Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience no. 15 (1):71-84. doi: 10.1162/089892903321107837.
Dosenbach, N. U., D. A. Fair, F. M. Miezin, A. L. Cohen, K. K. Wenger, R. A.
Dosenbach, M. D. Fox, A. Z. Snyder, J. L. Vincent, M. E. Raichle, B. L.
Schlaggar, and S. E. Petersen. 2007. "Distinct Brain Networks for Adaptive and
Stable Task Control in Humans." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America no. 104 (26):11073-8. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0704320104
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
27
Duncan, J. 2010. "The Multiple-Demand (Md) System of the Primate Brain: Mental
Programs for Intelligent Behaviour." Trends in Cognitive Sciences no. 14 (4):172-
9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004.
Fletcher, P. C., and R. N. Henson. 2001. "Frontal Lobes and Human Memory: Insights
from Functional Neuroimaging." Brain no. 124 (Pt 5):849-81. doi:
10.1093/brain/124.5.849.
Fletcher, P. C., T. Shallice, C. D. Frith, R. S. Frackowiak, and R. J. Dolan. 1998. "The
Functional Roles of Prefrontal Cortex in Episodic Memory. Ii. Retrieval." Brain
no. 121 ( Pt 7):1249-56. doi: 10.1093/brain/121.7.1249.
Fox, M. D., and M. E. Raichle. 2007. "Spontaneous Fluctuations in Brain Activity
Observed with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging." Nature Reviews
Neuroscience no. 8 (9):700-11. doi: 10.1038/nrn2201.
Fries, P. 2005. "A Mechanism for Cognitive Dynamics: Neuronal Communication
through Neuronal Coherence." Trends in Cognitive Sciences no. 9 (10):474-80.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.011.
Gold, B. T., D. A. Balota, S. J. Jones, D. K. Powell, C. D. Smith, and A. H. Andersen.
2006. "Dissociation of Automatic and Strategic Lexical-Semantics: Functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence for Differing Roles of Multiple
Frontotemporal Regions." Journal of Neuroscience no. 26 (24):6523-32. doi:
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0808-06.2006.
Gold, B. T., D. A. Balota, B. A. Kirchhoff, and R. L. Buckner. 2005. "Common and
Dissociable Activation Patterns Sssociated with Controlled Semantic and
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
28
Phonological Processing: Evidence from fMRI Adaptation." Cerebral Cortex.
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhi024.
Goldberg, R. F., C. A. Perfetti, J. A. Fiez, and W. Schneider. 2007. "Selective Retrieval
of Abstract Semantic Knowledge in Left Prefrontal Cortex." Journal of
Neuroscience no. 27 (14):3790-8. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2381-06.2007.
Gough, P. M., A. C. Nobre, and J. T. Devlin. 2005. "Dissociating Linguistic Processes in
the Left Inferior Frontal Cortex with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation." Journal
of Neuroscience no. 25 (35):8010-6. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2307-05.2005.
Griffiths, T.L., M. Steyvers, and A. Firl. 2007. "Google and the Mind: Predicting Fluency
with Pagerank." Psychological Science no. 18:1069-1076. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.02027.x.
Jacoby, L. L. 1991. "A Process Dissociation Framework: Separating Automatic from
Intentional Uses of Memory." Journal of Memory and Language no. 30:513-541.
doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F.
Janowsky, J. S., A. P. Shimamura, M. Kritchevsky, and L. R. Squire. 1989. "Cognitive
Impairment Following Frontal Lobe Damage and Its Relevance to Human
Amnesia." Behavioral Neuroscience no. 103 (3):548-60. doi: 10.1037/0735-
7044.103.3.548.
Janowsky, J. S., A. P. Shimamura, and L. R. Squire. 1989. "Source Memory Impairment
in Patients with Frontal Lobe Lesions." Neuropsychologia no. 27 (8):1043-56.
doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(89)90184-X.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
29
Jetter, W., U. Poser, R. B. Freeman, Jr., and H. J. Markowitsch. 1986. "A Verbal Long
Term Memory Deficit in Frontal Lobe Damaged Patients." Cortex no. 22 (2):229-
42.
Klein, D., A. Olivier, B. Milner, R. J. Zatorre, I. Johnsrude, E. Meyer, and A. C. Evans.
1997. "Obligatory Role of the Lifg in Synonym Generation: Evidence from Pet
and Cortical Stimulation." Neuroreport no. 8 (15):3275-9. doi:
10.1097/00001756-199710200-00017.
Kuhl, B. A., I. Kahn, N. M. Dudukovic, and A. D. Wagner. 2008. "Overcoming
Suppression in Order to Remember: Contributions from Anterior Cingulate and
Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex." Cognitive Affective and Behavioral
Neuroscience no. 8 (2):211-21. doi: 10.3758/CABN.8.2.211.
Metzler, C. 2001. "Effects of Left Frontal Lesions on the Selection of Context-
Appropriate Meanings." Neuropsychology no. 15 (3):315-328. doi: 10.1037/0894-
4105.15.3.315.
Miller, E. K., and J. D. Cohen. 2001. "An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex
Function." Annual Review of Neuroscience no. 24:167-202. doi:
10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167.
Miller, E. K., and M. A. Wilson. 2008. "All My Circuits: Using Multiple Electrodes to
Understand Functioning Neural Networks." Neuron no. 60 (3):483-8. doi:
10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.033.
Moscovitch, M. 1982. "Multiple Dissociations of Function in the Amnesic Syndrome." In
Human Memory and Amnesia, edited by L S. Cermak, 337-370. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
30
Moscovitch, M. 1992. "Memory and Working-with-Memory: A Component Process
Model Based on Modules and Central Systems." Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience no. 4 (3):257-267. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.257.
Moscovitch, M., and B. Melo. 1997. "Strategic Retrieval and the Frontal Lobes: Evidence
from Confabulation and Amnesia." Neuropsychologia no. 35 (7):1017-34. doi:
10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00028-6.
Nolde, S. F., M. K. Johnson, and C. L. Raye. 1998. "The Role of Prefrontal Cortex
During Tests of Episodic Memory." Trends in Cognitive Sciences no. 2 (10):399-
406. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01233-9.
Nyberg, L., R. Cabeza, and E. Tulving. 1996. "Pet Studies of Encoding and Retrieval:
The Hera Model." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review no. 3 (2):135-148. doi:
10.3758/BF03212412.
Nyhus, E., and T. Curran. 2010a. "Functional Role of Gamma and Theta Oscillations in
Episodic Memory." Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews no. 34 (7):1023-35.
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.12.014.
Nyhus, E., and T. Curran. 2010b. Theta Oscillations in Top-Down Control of Episodic
Memory Retrieval. Doctoral Dissertation, Psychology, University of Colorado at
Boulder, Boulder.
Öztekin, I., and D. Badre. 2011. "Distributed Patterns of Brain Activity That Lead to
Forgetting." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience no. 5:86. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2011.00086.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
31
Petrides, M. 2002. "The Mid-Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex and Active Mnemonic
Retrieval." Neurobiology of Learning and Memory no. 78 (3):528-38. doi:
10.1006/nlme.2002.4107.
Poldrack, R. A., A. D. Wagner, M. W. Prull, J. E. Desmond, G. H. Glover, and J. D.
Gabrieli. 1999. "Functional Specialization for Semantic and Phonological
Processing in the Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex." Neuroimage no. 10 (1):15-35.
doi: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0441.
Postle, B. R., and L. N. Brush. 2004. "The Neural Bases of the Effects of Item-
Nonspecific Proactive Interference in Working Memory." Cognitive Affective and
Behavioral Neuroscience no. 4 (3):379-92. doi: 10.3758/CABN.4.3.379.
Postle, B. R., L. N. Brush, and A. M. Nick. 2004. "Prefrontal Cortex and the Mediation of
Proactive Interference in Working Memory." Cognitive Affective and Behavioral
Neuroscience no. 4 (4):600-8. doi: 10.3758/CABN.4.4.600.
Postman, L., and B.J. Underwood. 1973. "Critical Issues in Interference Theory."
Memory & Cognition no. 1:19-40. doi: 10.3758/BF03198064.
Race, E. A., D. Badre, and A. D. Wagner. 2010. "Multiple Forms of Learning Yield
Temporally Distinct Electrophysiological Repetition Effects." Cerebral Cortex
no. 20 (7):1726-38. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp233.
Race, E. A., S. Shanker, and A. D. Wagner. 2008. "Neural Priming in Human Frontal
Cortex: Multiple Forms of Learning Reduce Demands on the Prefrontal Executive
System." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21132.
Raichle, M. E., A. M. MacLeod, A. Z. Snyder, W. J. Powers, D. A. Gusnard, and G. L.
Shulman. 2001. "A Default Mode of Brain Function." Proceedings of the
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
32
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America no. 98 (2):676-82.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.041.
Rugg, M. D., L. J. Otten, and R. N. Henson. 2002. "The Neural Basis of Episodic
Memory: Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging." Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of LondonB Biological Sciences no. 357 (1424):1097-110.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1102.
Rugg, M. D., and E. L. Wilding. 2000. "Retrieval Processing and Episodic Memory."
Trends in Cognitive Sciences no. 4 (3):108-115. doi: 10.1016/S1364-
6613(00)01445-5.
Scimeca, J. M., and D. Badre. 2012. "Striatal Contributions to Declarative Memory
Retrieval." Neuron no. 75 (3):380-92. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.014.
Scoville, W. B., and B. Milner. 1957. "Loss of Recent Memory after Bilateral
Hippocampal Lesions." Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry no. 20
(1):11-21.
Shimamura, A. P., J. S. Janowsky, and L. R. Squire. 1990. "Memory for the Temporal
Order of Events in Patients with Frontal Lobe Lesions and Amnesic Patients."
Neuropsychologia no. 28 (8):803-13.
Simons, J. S., and H. J. Spiers. 2003. "Prefrontal and Medial Temporal Lobe Interactions
in Long-Term Memory." Nature Reviews Neuroscience no. 4 (8):637-48. doi:
10.1038/nrn1178.
Snyder, H. R., M. T. Banich, and Y. Munakata. 2011. "Choosing Our Words: Retrieval
and Selection Processes Recruit Shared Neural Substrates in Left Ventrolateral
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
33
Prefrontal Cortex." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience no. 23 (11):3470-82. doi:
10.1162/jocn_a_00023.
Snyder, H. R., N. Hutchison, E. Nyhus, T. Curran, M. T. Banich, R. C. O'Reilly, and Y.
Munakata. 2010. "Neural Inhibition Enables Selection During Language
Processing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America no. 107 (38):16483-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002291107/-
/DCSupplemental.
Spaniol, J., P. S. Davidson, A. S. Kim, H. Han, M. Moscovitch, and C. L. Grady. 2009.
"Event-Related fMRI Studies of Episodic Encoding and Retrieval: Meta-Analyses
Using Activation Likelihood Estimation." Neuropsychologia no. 47 (8-9):1765-
79. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.028.
Squire, L. R. 1982. "The Neuropsychology of Human-Memory." Annual Review of
Neuroscience no. 5:241-273. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ne.05.030182.001325.
Stuss, D. T., and M. P. Alexander. 2005. "Does Damage to the Frontal Lobes Produce
Impairment in Memory?" Current Directions in Psychological Science no. 14
(2):84-88. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00340.x.
Stuss, D. T., M. P. Alexander, C.L. Palumbo, L. Buckle, L. Sayer, and J. Pogue. 1994.
"Organizational Strategies of Patients with Unilateral or Bilateral Frontal Lobe
Injury in Word List Learning Tasks." Neuropsychologia no. 8 (3):355-373.
Swick, D., A. J. Senkfor, and C. Van Petten. 2006. "Source Memory Retrieval Is
Affected by Aging and Prefrontal Lesions: Behavioral and Erp Evidence." Brain
Rsearch no. 1107 (1):161-76. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.013.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
34
Thompson-Schill, S. L., and M. M. Botvinick. 2006. "Resolving Conflict: A Response to
Martin and Cheng (2006)." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review no. 13 (3):402-8;
discussion 409-11. doi: 10.3758/BF03193860.
Thompson-Schill, S. L., M. D'Esposito, G. K. Aguirre, and M. J. Farah. 1997. "Role of
Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex in Retrieval of Semantic Knowledge: A
Reevaluation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America no. 94 (26):14792-7.
Thompson-Schill, S. L., D. Swick, M. J. Farah, M. D'Esposito, I. P. Kan, and R. T.
Knight. 1998. "Verb Generation in Patients with Focal Frontal Lesions: A
Neuropsychological Test of Neuroimaging Findings." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America no. 95 (26):15855-
60. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.26.15855
Tulving, E., S. Kapur, F. I. Craik, M. Moscovitch, and S. Houle. 1994. "Hemispheric
Encoding/Retrieval Asymmetry in Episodic Memory: Positron Emission
Tomography Findings." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America no. 91 (6):2016-20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.6.2016.
Varela, F., J. P. Lachaux, E. Rodriguez, and J. Martinerie. 2001. "The Brainweb: Phase
Synchronization and Large-Scale Integration." Nature Reviews Neuroscience no.
2 (4):229-39. doi: 10.1038/35067550.
Vincent, J. L., I. Kahn, A. Z. Snyder, M. E. Raichle, and R. L. Buckner. 2008. "Evidence
for a Frontoparietal Control System Revealed by Intrinsic Functional
Connectivity." Journal of Neurophysiology no. 100 (6):3328-42. doi:
10.1152/jn.90355.2008.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
35
Wagner, A. D., A. Maril, R. A. Bjork, and D. L. Schacter. 2001. "Prefrontal
Contributions to Executive Control: fMRI Evidence for Functional Distinctions
within Lateral Prefrontal Cortex." Neuroimage no. 14 (6):1337-47. doi:
10.1006/nimg.2001.0936.
Wilding, E. L., and M. D. Rugg. 1996. "An Event-Related Potential Study of Recognition
Memory with and without Retrieval of Source." Brain no. 119 ( Pt 3):889-905.
doi: 10.1093/brain/119.3.889.
Winocur, G., M. Kinsbourne, and M. Moscovitch. 1981. "The Effect of Cueing on
Release from Proactive-Interference in Korsakoff Amnesic Patients." Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Human Learning and Memory no. 7 (1):56-65.
Womelsdorf, T., J. M. Schoffelen, R. Oostenveld, W. Singer, R. Desimone, A. K. Engel,
and P. Fries. 2007. "Modulation of Neuronal Interactions through Neuronal
Synchronization." Science no. 316 (5831):1609-12. doi:
10.1126/science.1139597.
Yeo, B. T., F. M. Krienen, J. Sepulcre, M. R. Sabuncu, D. Lashkari, M. Hollinshead, J. L.
Roffman, J. W. Smoller, L. Zollei, J. R. Polimeni, B. Fischl, H. Liu, and R. L.
Buckner. 2011. "The Organization of the Human Cerebral Cortex Estimated by
Intrinsic Functional Connectivity." Journal of Neurophysiology no. 106 (3):1125-
65. doi: 10.1152/jn.00338.2011.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
36
Figure Captions
Figure 1: Anatomical divisions of VLPFC. (A) Schematic representation of the
cytoarchitectonic divisions of the lateral PFC (adapted from Petrides and Pandya 2002).
Labels highlight the anterior VLPFC (pars orbitalis (~Brodmann area [BA] 47)) and mid-
VLPFC (pars triangularis (~BA 45)). (B) Coronal slices from the MNI canonical brain
depict the anatomical boundaries that define mid-VLPFC and anterior VLPFC (reprinted
with permission from Badre and Wagner 2007). Labeled anatomical boundaries are (1)
the inferior frontal sulcus, (2) insular sulcus, (3) horizontal ramus of the lateral fissure,
and (4) orbital gyrus.
Figure 2: Results from manipulations of control during semantic retrieval provide
evidence for the two-process model (reprinted with permission from Badre et al. 2005).
(A) Contrasts of weak relative to strong associative strength (Associative Strength) (p <
0.001) and decisions of item similarity based on features (e.g. color) relative to general
semantic relatedness (Feature Specificity) (p < 0.001). (B) Contrasts of associative
strength (blue) and feature specificity (red) and their overlap (purple) are rendered on an
inflated MNI canonical surface. Anterior VLPFC was sensitive to associative strength
whereas mid-VLPFC was sensitive to both associative strength and feature specificity.
Figure 3: Schematic representation of separable controlled retrieval and post-retrieval
control networks. (A) Seven-network cluster in a sample of 1000 participants (reprinted
with permission from Yeo et al. 2011) with locations of inferior frontal sulcus, anterior
VLPFC and mid-VLPFC regions (circles) indicated. Note these are approximate
locations for illustrative purposes and have not been established formally. Anterior
VLPFC falls within the ventral network (red) whereas mid-VLPFC falls on both (orange
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
37
and red) or strictly on the dorsal control network (orange). (B) Proposed distinction
between the ventral retrieval pathway and the dorsal fronto-parietal post-retrieval control
network (reprinted with permission from Barredo, Oztekin, and Badre in revision). The
ventral retrieval network includes anterior VLPFC, aTC, aPHG, and HPC whereas the
dorsal fronto-parietal post-retrieval control network includes dorsolateral frontal, and
inferior parietal lobes.
Figure 4: Functional connectivity along the ventral retrieval network and the dorsal
fronto-parietal post-retrieval control network (reprinted with permission from Barredo,
Oztekin, and Badre in revision). Anterior VLPFC functionally couples with aTC, aPHG,
and HPC (red, top). Mid-VLPFC functionally couples with dorsolateral frontal, inferior
parietal lobes, ITG and basal ganglia (purple, middle). All contrasts are valid ìANDî
conjunctions from FDR-corrected seed maps thresholded at p < 0.05. Some of the major
structures functionally coupling with various seeds are labeled as follows: (A) aVLPFC,
(B) aTC, (C) aPHG, (D) HPC, (E) cMTG.
Figure 5: Theta effects during a source retrieval task (reprinted with permission from
Nyhus and Curran 2010). (A) Theta power across all channels from 500-800 ms. Black
circles mark the approximate locations of analyzed channels in right frontal (channel 1)
and left parietal (channel 53) brain regions. Color scale: decibel change from pre-
stimulus baseline. (A) Theta coherence for all frequencies across one right frontal
channel (channel 1) and one left parietal channel (channel 53). Highlighted is theta
coherence from 500-800 ms. Color scale: magnitude of cross-coherence from 0-1; 0
indicating absence of synchronization and 1 indicating perfect synchronization for each
frequency at each time-point.
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
38
Figure 1
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
39
Figure 2
A)
B)
mid-VLPFC
anterior VLPFC mid-VLPFC
Associative Strength Weak-Strong
Feature Specificity Feature-Related
Feature Specificity
Associative Strength
Overlap
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
40
Figure 3
mid-VLPFC
anterior VLPFC
A)
B)
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
41
Figure 4
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
42
Figure 5
Correct Rejections Hits Place Hits Pleasantness
Hits Correct Source Hits Incorrect Source
B)
A)
Word Count: 8,085 Frontal Lobes and Memory Retrieval
43
Cross-References
See CHAPTER 2 (EPISODIC ENCODING AND RETRIEVAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING) See CHAPTER 6 (THE DEVELOPMENT OF EPISODIC MEMORY: EVIDENCE FROM ERPS)
Biographical Note
Erika Nyhus is a postdoctoral Research Associate in Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University. She studies the neural processes involved in higher-level cognition, including executive functioning and episodic memory. Her research has addressed these topics through behavioral and neuroimaging (electroencephalography (EEG), event-related potential (ERP), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)) methods. This research has shown how frontal cortex, parietal cortex, and hippocampus transiently interact in support of controlled retrieval of episodic memories.
David Badre is Assistant Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University and an affiliate of the Brown Institute for Brain Science. His lab at Brown studies cognitive control of memory and action, with a focus on frontal lobe function and organization. He was named an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow in 2011 and a James S. McDonnell Scholar in 2012 and currently serves on the Editorial Boards of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychological Science.